Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

The right book for varusFollow

#77 Aug 16 2011 at 12:14 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
Gbaji wrote:
Aripyanfar wrote:
Yes, your debt is so high you're fucked. No, NO ONE COULD HAVE PUT THE USA IN A BETTER POSITION THAN IT IS NOW.
False. Had the GOP been in control of Congress in 2008 and retained the presidency (and congress) in 2009, we would be in a vastly better position than we are right now. If you can't see this, it's a failure of your own ability to see beyond a very narrow set of ideological assumptions, and not because those possibilities don't exist.
Aripyanfar wrote:
Letting the banks fail or letting the private sector cope alone with the GFC would have made things exponentially worse than they are now.

Sure. But that's not what the GOP proposed. We wanted to do TARP. Bail out the banks. Maybe even do a small token stimulus via direct checks like Bush did (twice). Doesn't cost too much, doesn't hurt to much, and doesn't help too much either. But it does make people feel better, so there's something. What we opposed was the massive spending in the recovery act and other stimulus related spending that followed for the next year and a half.

We did not need to spend that money. We did not need to do anything more than stop the financial institutions from failing, provide them enough capital to recover, and then allow the economy to recover naturally as a result. The negatives in the economy were because of the financial failures. Fix the failures, and those negatives will turn around. You don't need to do anything else.


The question that pops to mind here is what do we do in the meantime? If it takes 5 or 6 more years before the private sector has shed enough debt to start spending/hiring again we're left with a whole generation of young people who are in debt and under-employed. They're going to be eager for the government to fix that problem (rightly or wrongly); that's the type of circumstance that could well spur another stimulus package or continued calls for government to help prop up the economy, what little it can.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#78 Aug 16 2011 at 1:08 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Kavekk wrote:
Yes, I agree. It's a shame that those willing to put politics aside and those that aren't are divided so cleanly by party lines.

____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#79 Aug 16 2011 at 2:55 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Holy cow Ari! I'll try to respond to some of your posts. Sheesh! ;)

Aripyanfar wrote:

If a bunch of wealthy people are earning 350 times the average American worker, wouldn't you expect their raw tax share to be a bit more than 10% higher than the median American?


I think you're missing some math there somewhere, or failing to see how this is relative to income. That whole group pays a larger share of taxes relative to their total income than any other group. Every other group pays an equal or lesser share. What this means is that on average, the guy earning 350 times as much money is paying 350 times as much in tax, plus that 10% difference you mentioned.

It's relative to income. And it's a higher ratio relative to income than any other group.

Quote:
CEOs' average pay, production workers' average pay, the S&P 500 Index, corporate profits, and the federal minimum wage, 1990-2005 (all figures adjusted for inflation)
Screenshot
What do you think about this last graph?


What am I supposed to think? It's contrived. Are you aware that while the graph says "CEO average pay", IIRC they averaged the CEO pay from the largest 100 corporations. It's not every CEO of every business large or small in the country. So you're comparing a very small set of the very very highly paid people to the whole set of "production workers". Why not compare their pay to the top 100 doctors, or lawyers, or any other traditionally high paid position?


As I keep trying to point out, you're allowing small bits of zoomed in data to obstruct the larger picture. The set of "the rich" pay a larger portion of the total tax burden related to their income than "the poor". They are certainly paying their "fair share" and then a bit more. Isn't that what's really important here?


And this all still fails completely to address my starting point which was purely about the legitimacy of conservatives to say that the left is attempting to "raise taxes". It's not about the rich trying to pay less, but about the left trying to take more of the whole pie in the form of taxes. We can (and kinda are) debate how much each group should pay, but that's really just a side issue here. To me, the bigger issue is that if the left succeeds in getting their tax increases to pay for the deficit, then they will have raised total tax revenue for the federal government to a level it has not been at in 60+ years.


They are the ones trying to change that economic reality. And they're using the economic crisis and the deficits they created as a lever to do it. All your jumping up and down and declaring it a global crisis doesn't change that fact.

Edited, Aug 16th 2011 2:27pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#80 Aug 16 2011 at 3:01 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
Allegory wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
And not in any way meaningful enough to call freedom.

Gbaji has this arbitrary distinction that freedom cannot be given, it can only be taken or not taken away. I'm also not sure whether he said it explicitly, but it is largely implied that only governments can take away freedom. He faults the individual for circumstances beyond her control unless that circumstance is government, in which case it is no fault of the individual and solely on the government.
There was a whole thread where I believe a bunch of us got Gbaji to state more or less that exactly. He probably attached two or three paragraphs to it of course. He doesn't give any importance to whether or not you can do something, only whether someone isn't telling you you can't.


That's not technically true. The first part is correct. Freedom cannot be given, but can only be taken away. The second part is absolutely untrue. Freedom can be taken by other individuals as well as by government. In fact, this is why we have a government. To prevent our liberties from being taken from us by other people (and foreign governments/forces/whatever). I even quoted the bit from Locke where this is explained:

John Locke wrote:
IF man in the state of nature be so free, as has been said; if he be absolute lord of his own person and possessions, equal to the greatest, and subject to no body, why will he part with his freedom? why will he give up this empire, and subject himself to the dominion and controul of any other power? To which it is obvious to answer, that though in the state of nature he hath such a right, yet the enjoyment of it is very uncertain, and constantly exposed to the invasion of others: for all being kings as much as he, every man his equal, and the greater part no strict observers of equity and justice, the enjoyment of the property he has in this state is very unsafe, very unsecure. This makes him willing to quit a condition, which, however free, is full of fears and continual dangers: and it is not without reason, that he seeks out, and is willing to join in society with others, who are already united, or have a mind to unite, for the mutual preservation of their lives, liberties and estates, which I call by the general name, property.


The point is that our government should act only in ways which are aimed at this goal. That is its purpose for existing. We agree to give some of our liberty to the formation of a society and rules to govern it (a government) in return for protection of all the remaining liberties. The assumption being that our own system should not start infringing on those, or it ceases to fulfill its purpose.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#81 Aug 16 2011 at 3:25 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Aripyanfar wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Ok. Good point. However, those are "natural" effects on spending and revenue though. Revenue drops because economic activity decreases during a recession. It doesn't drop because we lowered tax rates, right?
If you lower tax rates, and all else remains equal, revenue drops.


But that's not what happened in this case, right? In this case, tax rates stayed the same, but "all else" did not remain equal. We had a recession and that caused revenues to drop. The idea that we should raise tax rates to fix the revenue problems doesn't make any sense. We didn't have to do this to recover from any other recent recessions, why would it be required in this case?

Quote:
Gbaji wrote:
Similarly, spending increases because more people are in need of existing social services. We don't increase the scope of those services, right?
You know what I'm going to say: increase the scope of services, and public spending costs more.


Ok. But stay focused on the topic. We're talking about recessionary patterns here, right? In past recessions, spending increased not because we passed new spending laws increasing the scope of our social programs, but because the recession itself caused greater need for the existing ones. Just as revenue drops as a natural consequence of recession, so does spending increase. We don't have to change any laws for that to happen.

So you're correct that we've seen this happen in past recessions. However, in this recession, the Democrats choose to increase spending. Not just spending more on the same things because of increased need, but simply because they choose to add a whole lot of new things to spend money on. That's why spending went so far out of control. Normally, we should have seen deficits of maybe 500-600B in size. But because of their new spending, we've seen deficits around three times that big.


That's why this recession is different. That's why we're not recovering from it as quickly. And that is 100% the result of the Dems actions.

Quote:
Gbaji wrote:
But this recession is different than the last 2 or 3 because the Dems did increase the scope of social services. They passed legislation to create new benefits, and new programs, and new objectives. Thus, we had more than the usual revenue/spending gap we'd expect in a recession of this type. That in turn created greater deficits than normal.
True to an extent. The PUBLIC gap during this recession was greater than it might have been.


It's much much greater than it would have been. Don't undersell this. We didn't have a debt crisis after the 2001 recession, or back during the S&L crisis. Those recessions had similar effects on revenue and employment (initially anyway). The Dems tipped the balance way over.

Quote:
But that public expenditure on social services, while providing services that would have long term returns, ALSO had a secondary and very useful function as direct stimulus. The new public servants were directly hired in a recession, a time of rising unemployment. The difference in pay between their new wages and unemployment probably mostly went straight back into the private economy (easing the recession) except for the part of their pay that went to taxes (easing the deficit).


Except that this didn't work. It didn't stimulate the economy. And it didn't help unemployment. And we conservatives said that it wouldn't work. We were right. The liberals were wrong. I get that this is a fundamental ideological difference of opinion. Conservatives believe that government spending on the demand side doesn't create jobs or stimulate the economy. Liberals believe that it does. Well, we just tested it. Liberals were wrong. Shocking!

Quote:
While it looked bad in the short term, This spending was probably a solid long-term bet, returning more over-all than it cost. But you have to wait for the benefits to ... Trickle Through! (I would expect some social services to be paying dividends in 20 years time)


Which is it though? Does the spending stimulate the economy into recovery? Or does it hurt us in the short term but provide long term benefits? From where I'm standing it has done the opposite of both. It hurt us in the short term by creating too much debt for our system to handle. And it'll hurt us in the long term because if we have to raise taxes to pay for the debt, it'll slow down the economy for decades to come.

Of course, that's from a conservative's perspective. But it's amazing how frequently we're exactly right about our economic predictions and how consistently the left is wrong. You'd think some people would stop assuming that conservative ideas are wrong. But ideology is stronger than even fact when it's put right in front of you, I guess?

Quote:
Well, the debt increase due to increased social services was completely and utterly dwarfed by the bank bail-outs, mortgage buy-outs, Car company (bail-outs? buy-outs?) and direct economic stimulous to counter a looming Depression.


You lumped more things than I was talking about in there though. I'm putting car company bail outs, social services, mortgage buy-outs, and direct economic stimulus into the "we didn't need to spend this money" category. Against this, is the bank bail-outs, which is the only necessary spending. That cost us less than $400B, and we've gotten 100% of that money back (with interest!). It cost us zero dollars to bail out the banks.

All the other costs were the things that Democrats pushed for and the GOP largely opposed. And that spending is what's killing us now, not the bank bail outs. Had we just done TARP (yes, I'm aware that contained car company bailouts, but that was an add-in by the Dems which the GOP opposed), we would have prevented economic collapse, not put us in debt, and would likely be in complete recovery right now.

Unfortunately, we had Democrats in charge. So here we are, sitting at the bottom of a recessionary hole wondering how to get out. Unfortunately, the left is so stubborn that they'll never admit the absolute disastrous failure of their economic policies, so the only way we can reverse course is if the GOP wins majorities in both houses and gains the white house next year. So we'll have to suffer this crappy economy for another year and a half before we'll see things turn around.


Again, it just makes me wonder why people still think that liberal economic idea work. All evidence should point in the other direction, right?

Edited, Aug 16th 2011 2:30pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#82 Aug 16 2011 at 4:16 PM Rating: Good
Jophiel wrote:
Kavekk wrote:
Yes, I agree. It's a shame that those willing to put politics aside and those that aren't are divided so cleanly by party lines.

JOPHIEL'S VIDEO.


I don't disagree that the republican candidates are unwilling to compromise.

Edited, Aug 16th 2011 10:17pm by Kavekk
#83 Aug 16 2011 at 4:43 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Well, there's only one major Democratic candidate for president and, last I heard, he was seeking a "grand compromise" of spending cuts, entitlement reforms and tax increases.

Seems pretty party line to me, at least where Chief Executive is concerned.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#84 Aug 16 2011 at 5:42 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Well, there's only one major Democratic candidate for president and, last I heard, he was seeking a "grand compromise" of spending cuts, entitlement reforms and tax increases.

Seems pretty party line to me, at least where Chief Executive is concerned.


He gets to appeal to moderate voters right from the get go, while his opponent will have to say several things unpalatable to the mainstream just to survive the Tea Party turnout in the primaries.

Should be interesting.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#85 Aug 16 2011 at 5:59 PM Rating: Good
Jophiel wrote:
Well, there's only one major Democratic candidate for president and, last I heard, he was seeking a "grand compromise" of spending cuts, entitlement reforms and tax increases.

Seems pretty party line to me, at least where Chief Executive is concerned.


I just found the way Kachi expressed himself to be kind of funny.
#86 Aug 16 2011 at 7:25 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Kavekk wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Kavekk wrote:
Yes, I agree. It's a shame that those willing to put politics aside and those that aren't are divided so cleanly by party lines.

JOPHIEL'S VIDEO.


I don't disagree that the republican candidates are unwilling to compromise.


As well they shouldn't. I don't recall the Democrats compromising with Republicans and letting them pick 1 dollar of tax cuts for every 10 dollars of spending increase when they passed the recovery act, or all those other spending bills. Why should we compromise by giving *any* tax increases now that their spending has created a massive deficit?


We need to fix the deficit by undoing the spending. We didn't change tax rates between 2007 and today, so why fix the deficits created during that time with any tax rate increases?


It's just funny how "compromise" to liberals always means the GOP giving stuff up while getting nothing in return.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#87 Aug 16 2011 at 7:27 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Smiley: laughSmiley: laughSmiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#88 Aug 16 2011 at 7:27 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Well, there's only one major Democratic candidate for president and, last I heard, he was seeking a "grand compromise" of spending cuts, entitlement reforms and tax increases.

Seems pretty party line to me, at least where Chief Executive is concerned.


He gets to appeal to moderate voters right from the get go, while his opponent will have to say several things unpalatable to the mainstream just to survive the Tea Party turnout in the primaries.


The flaw with your thinking is the assumption that standing firm on a position of no tax rate increases is somehow "unpalatable" to the mainstream. I suspect that the message that the American people should not have to pay for the Democrats excesses will play quite well among most audiences.

Quote:
Should be interesting.


Yes, it should be.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#89 Aug 16 2011 at 7:51 PM Rating: Decent
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
We need to fix the deficit by undoing the spending. We didn't change tax rates between 2007 and today, so why fix the deficits created during that time with any tax rate increases?


It's just funny how "compromise" to liberals always means the GOP giving stuff up while getting nothing in return.


Right. The record low taxation was all the democrats!

But I'm sure you know just what to cut. So please, divulge.
#90 Aug 16 2011 at 8:03 PM Rating: Excellent
Kachi wrote:
Quote:
We need to fix the deficit by undoing the spending. We didn't change tax rates between 2007 and today, so why fix the deficits created during that time with any tax rate increases?

It's just funny how "compromise" to liberals always means the GOP giving stuff up while getting nothing in return


Right. The record low taxation was all the democrats!

But I'm sure you know just what to cut. So please, divulge.


His own throat?
#91 Aug 16 2011 at 8:16 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
gbaji wrote:

The flaw with your thinking is the assumption that standing firm on a position of no tax rate increases is somehow "unpalatable" to the mainstream. I suspect that the message that the American people should not have to pay for the Democrats excesses will play quite well among most audiences.


I think the idea of no tax increases isn't necessarily a bad thing. However the question (in my mind at least) is whether or not that be accomplished without cutting too deeply into programs that more moderate American feel they want or need. A smaller tax increase and smaller budget cuts may well prove more palatable then a larger decrease in government spending. People tend to fear changes, and the bigger the change the more nervous they get.


Edited, Aug 16th 2011 7:17pm by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#92 Aug 16 2011 at 8:32 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Kachi wrote:
Quote:
We need to fix the deficit by undoing the spending. We didn't change tax rates between 2007 and today, so why fix the deficits created during that time with any tax rate increases?


It's just funny how "compromise" to liberals always means the GOP giving stuff up while getting nothing in return.


Right. The record low taxation was all the democrats!


And once again we have someone confusing "tax rates" with "tax revenue". Revenue is at a record low. But not because we changed the tax rates. Fix the underlying economic problems and those same tax rates will result in higher tax revenue just as they did prior to the housing bubble collapse.

As I pointed out before (no clue which thread though!) revenue in 2007 relative to GDP was at a level that has only been exceeded in 9 out of the past 40 years. The problem isn't with the tax rates. They're fine. The problem is that we had a recession which affected revenues (as recessions always do), and the Dems went on a spending spree, resulting in far far higher deficits than normal for a recession, which triggered fears of increased tax rates, which has slowed economic growth, which has prevented revenues from coming back up, which has kept the deficits high, which has now caused a debt crisis.


The fault is all on the Dem spending. Like I said. We didn't change the tax rates between 2007 and today. There is no need to change them to balance out anything that has happened along the way. In fact, if we do raise them, it'll likely make things worse since it will confirm the fears of investors and make them definitely less likely to invest in ways which will increase employment.

We're in a nasty downward spiral. The wrong answer is to keep doing the things which got us here, or attempting to keep those things in place and make adjustments in other things (like tax rates) to try to balance them out. The correct answer is to look at what we changed along the way, and change as much back as possible.

Quote:
But I'm sure you know just what to cut. So please, divulge.


Sure. Stop providing extended unemployment benefits, right now. Cancel funding for all the green energy BS we passed over the last 2.5 years. Tighten medicaid funding back to 2007 levels. Stop trying to "help" people through this crisis. As long as we keep doing that, people will take advantage of it and keep taking the money. Cancel all funding for everything that we haven't actually spent physical money on yet from the recovery act. So all those projects which have been allocated funding, for which money has been set aside, but which weren't "shovel ready" and are still sitting in bureaucratic backlog should be canceled entirely.

Back all discretionary funding to 2007 levels. Everything. Yes, this includes military spending.


Addressing cost increases in Medicare and Social security is a longer term issue, but I think if we do those things I just mentioned and do all of them we could probably cut a half a trillion dollars minimum from our yearly expenses. That would create deficit reduction about double what the current "plan" in place right now calls for. It also is "fair" in that we eliminate all new spending created after the crisis began. All sides lose only what they gained during that time period. This is far more fair than the Democrats attempting to pay for what they gained by taking away something which didn't change during the time period in question (tax rates).


Do this, and commit to not changing tax rates for the next 5 years at least (or better yet, making the Bush tax rates permanent) and you'll see rapid recovery. Hell. Just the tax commitment will turn the economy around very quickly. The deficit reduction stuff is needed just to deal with our debt.


Did you honestly think I wouldn't have an answer? Do you have one? What would you be willing to cut?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#93 Aug 16 2011 at 8:40 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
gbaji wrote:

The flaw with your thinking is the assumption that standing firm on a position of no tax rate increases is somehow "unpalatable" to the mainstream. I suspect that the message that the American people should not have to pay for the Democrats excesses will play quite well among most audiences.


I think the idea of no tax increases isn't necessarily a bad thing. However the question (in my mind at least) is whether or not that be accomplished without cutting too deeply into programs that more moderate American feel they want or need. A smaller tax increase and smaller budget cuts may well prove more palatable then a larger decrease in government spending. People tend to fear changes, and the bigger the change the more nervous they get.


Sure. But I think that this is exaggerated to some degree. You have to realize that a good portion of the new spending the Dems did in 2009/2010 is "future spending". They've passed legislation requiring funds to be budgeted for tons of stuff that we didn't fund before (or not to that amount). The point being that most of this funding hasn't had any effect at all yet. We absolutely can eliminate it without a single person feeling any negative effect. A great example is recovery act "spending" which consists of funding for construction programs that haven't begun yet. No one's been hired. No money has been spent. But it's budgeted, so we've lost the money and will continue to spend that money each year going forward. We can eliminate that and get the money back today without a single person being affected.


There are tons of spending mandates out there just like that. I really think that most people just don't realize this. A lot of our projected future deficit is made up of this "we haven't spent it yet, but we've promised to" stuff. The Dems don't want to give this up though, because then they'll have lost their opportunity to expand the size of government. And they're willing to risk economic downgrading rather than cut that spending, and they're certainly willing to make the taxpayers pay more money to pay for those things.


Um... Having said that, there is one compromise which I suspect most Conservatives would agree to, and which might help speed our way out of the current debt problem. We could allow for temporary tax increases coupled with significantly greater *real* spending cuts to get us by, but only if the tax increases have an automatic sunset provision that makes them expire in say 5 years *and* which at that time revert us back to the Bush tax rates and make those rates permanent going forward. Conservatives might go for something like that. But that's pretty likely to be the only way they're going to agree to any tax increases passed in the name of deficit reduction or to fix a crisis which we all feel the Democrats caused.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#94 Aug 16 2011 at 9:32 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
gbaji wrote:
Um... Having said that, there is one compromise which I suspect most Conservatives would agree to, and which might help speed our way out of the current debt problem. We could allow for temporary tax increases coupled with significantly greater *real* spending cuts to get us by, but only if the tax increases have an automatic sunset provision that makes them expire in say 5 years *and* which at that time revert us back to the Bush tax rates and make those rates permanent going forward. Conservatives might go for something like that. But that's pretty likely to be the only way they're going to agree to any tax increases passed in the name of deficit reduction or to fix a crisis which we all feel the Democrats caused.


Sounds like something that could well be pushed through with bi-partisan support from moderates on both sides. Now there's just the matter of getting a potential Republican President who would support that through the primary system without signing a certain pledge which could derail it, or saying things that sound too 'tea party-ish' and could come back to hurt him in the general election.



Edited, Aug 16th 2011 8:33pm by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#95 Aug 17 2011 at 2:33 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
Allegory wrote:
It's a funny thing to know something but not believe it. Not matter how large your text Ari, you know arguing this point with Gbaji is fruitless, but it's just so hard to believe.


I love your phrasings, Allegory.

Elinda wrote:
Aripyanfar wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
As I've pointed out in past threads, there's a reason why the Democrats predicted summer of 2010 would be the "summer of recovery". It's because past recessionary trends followed a very predictable pattern, and that pattern said that we should have started to recover at that time. But we didn't. So. What changed? Like I said, we spent more money than in past recessions. We didn't just end out spending more to provide existing services to an increased number of people, but actually increased the number and type of services (and other stuff) that we were spending money on. That's what changed. That's why this recession isn't starting to recover after 2 years like we saw with the dotcom and 9/11 crashes, and the S&L crash.
I'll bet you a hundred dollars that the Democrat prdiction that the summer of 2010 would the the "summer of recovery" was predicted BEFORE the GFC. The recession? Almost all of the Deficit? It's the GFC Stupid. The GFC is to the dotcom and 9/11 crashes as the Boxing Day Tsunami is to two farts in a bath-tub. You have NO GRASP of the SCALE of the crisis. None whatsoever. Your fears are in the totally WRONG PLACE.
Gbaji wrote:
Aripyanfar wrote:
It is disingenuous to point at public spending jumping to 25% of GDP under Obama in isolation.
I'm not though. Even in past recessions, spending didn't increase nearly that much. Surely you can acknowledge that we didn't just spend more money because more people were in need of existing services, but that we also expanded services and created new areas of spending? My statements are not in isolation. My statements are in full recognition that we spent more money on "new things" during this recession instead of just spending more on existing things as a natural consequence of the recession itself.
It's the GFC Stupid. Not the increased social services. THE GFC. The scale of increased public spending in the US after the GFC on SOCIAL SERVICES is NOTHING compared to the increased public spending on sundry palliatives to the GFC. Your debt angst has the WRONG CAUSE.

Edited, Aug 16th 2011 2:34am by Aripyanfar

u mad?


I'm not sure, but that guy who called me out 4chan slang last time sure will be!
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#96 Aug 17 2011 at 2:51 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
Quote:

Sure. But I think that this is exaggerated to some degree. You have to realize that a good portion of the new spending the Dems did in 2009/2010 is "future spending". They've passed legislation requiring funds to be budgeted for tons of stuff that we didn't fund before (or not to that amount). The point being that most of this funding hasn't had any effect at all yet. We absolutely can eliminate it without a single person feeling any negative effect. A great example is recovery act "spending" which consists of funding for construction programs that haven't begun yet. No one's been hired. No money has been spent. But it's budgeted, so we've lost the money and will continue to spend that money each year going forward. We can eliminate that and get the money back today without a single person being affected.


Except that Businesses don't operate on the near term approach all of the time. If you are a construction company, and have a large scale project due in the next year, you need to ensure you have good workers, well priced materials and sound engineering plans for that project. If someone tells you they want you to build a bridge, and then changes their mind, you are not only less likely to build bridges for them in the future, but your whole supply chain is affected, as those workers were hired and not really needed, thus resulting in loss, the engineering was wasted, and the fluctuation is the material resource supply artificially increased the price of other construction projects, which may have prevented them from being a good idea to take up. As someone who believes in trickle down economics, you seem to have a bizarre view of how things are done, and how business investitures affect people.


Edited, Aug 17th 2011 5:01am by Timelordwho
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#97 Aug 17 2011 at 5:11 AM Rating: Good
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
gbaji wrote:

Sure. Stop providing extended unemployment benefits, right now.

Ok then, find a job for me.
#98 Aug 17 2011 at 5:26 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
Nadenu wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Sure. Stop providing extended unemployment benefits, right now.
Ok then, find a job for me.


I know you're joking, but you are helping Gbaji's argument.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#99REDACTED, Posted: Aug 17 2011 at 8:12 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Nadenu,
#100 Aug 17 2011 at 8:17 AM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
No, the point is, I'm looking for a job, but there are none out there. You know, like varus and co. like to keep pointing out...
#101REDACTED, Posted: Aug 17 2011 at 8:19 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Nadenu,
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 324 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (324)